JUDGING CRIMES

Over at New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library - admittedly, not the catchiest blog name around - is a summary of a recent Washington Post op-ed by "criminologist David Kennedy of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice":

Kennedy notes that many jurisdictions made progress against crime only to lose ground shortly thereafter. Philadelphia peaked at 420 homicides in 1996, fell to 292 in 1999, and climbed back to 380 last year. Boston's 1990s 'miracle' ended abruptly as petty rivalries shattered the Ceasefire coalition, and killings increased from 31 in 1999 to 73 in 2005. Meanwhile, gang and drug problems were showing up in smaller cities and towns -- another disturbing and largely unnoticed shift. Because serious crime is concentrated in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods, some citywide statistics have always been meaningless when certain 'neighborhoods are war zones,' Kennedy says.

The phenomenon being described was made vivid to me by another Washington Post piece, this one a little feature from 2002 buried on page A20, comparing the conditions created by the Washington sniper to the everyday life of those unfortunate enough to live east of the Anacostia.  If the sniper had attacked in the eastern part of the city, no one - and certainly not the national media - would have noticed.  Well, no one except those who found the bodies and attended the funerals, of course.

There's nearly a straight line relationship between income and victimization in America.  The poorer you are, the more likely you'll be the victim of violent crime.  Crime figures must always be taken with a shaker of salt, but trends as monotonously consistent as this one are the real thing.  Here's some violent crime figures from 2004:

Household income / Victimization rate per 100,000

under $7,500 / 38.4

$7,500-14,999 / 39

$ 15,000-24,999 / 24.4

$25,000-34,999 / 22.1

$35,000-49,999 / 21.6

$50,000-74,999 / 22.1

$75,000 or more / 17.0

The victimization rate for those with a household income of $75,000-plus is less than half that for those with a household income of $15,000 or less.  But that's not the difference between rich and poor.  In Santa Barbara, couples earning $75,000 are entitled to subsidized housing.  It's the annual income of a pair of experienced teachers.  For a couple with kids in most parts of the country, it's comfortably middle class - a home in Arlington Heights.  But that's not rich.

On the other hand, a household income of less than $15,000 isn't just poor.  It's destitute.   So what the figures are saying is that rising from the streets to a tract home in the suburbs reduces your risk of being the victim of a violent crime by half. 

Now think about the sort of neighborhoods in which the rich live.  I'd be curious to know if the curve continues downward at the same or an accelerating rate as the annual household income level rises.  My guess is that we approach absolute zero around $250,000, which isn't even rich, really.  A truly wealthy person has to go to a good deal of trouble to get physically attacked.

The Kennedy article, as summarized by the folks at the Supreme Court Criminal Term Library, makes this recommendation:

He advocates the federal government's returning to its role as a real partner in conquering crime by providing funding and crafting effective approaches to key problems, such as drug markets, the methamphetamine epidemic, domestic violence, gangs, and prisoners' reentry into their communities.

The meth epidemic could be easily shut down by government action, including mass tort suits, against the manufacturers of Sudafed and its knockoffs.  Drug markets and the problematic reentry of many prisoners are both artifacts of the war on drugs, which is another way of saying they're problems because our government has decided to make them problems.  Those are political issues.

Domestic violence is in another category.  I'm entirely convinced by Lonnie Athens' work, that the experience of violence in the home is necessary for the creation of dangerous violent criminals.  But even if you resist that theory, all you have to do is read about the mitigating evidence offered in virtually any death penalty case.  You can divide it in half as exaggeration and still be horrified. 

The only question is whether most of the worst killers had rotten childhoods, or whether all of them did.  When we tolerate domestic violence and child abuse, we create a new generation of violent people, and not all of them can be counted on to keep their violence in the family.

Unfortunately for the physical well-being of some not-so-rich people who will die horrible deaths in the next decade or two, the Supreme Court has recently ordered the states to curtail their prosecution of domestic violence and child abuse.  Of course, Crawford didn't announce that goal straight out, but that's what the case really means.